Sunday, January 29, 2012

There are ways to fight tyrannical laws without resorting to violent insurrection. We don't even necessarily need to get unjust laws repealed in order to protect ourselves. As long as the right to a jury trial is respected, the people can defend citizens from the worst abuses of government. It is called jury nullification, which is a peaceful way to tell the government to fuck off. If I ever find myself on the jury of a criminal trial involving, say, statutory or feminist-defined rape or nonviolent drug offenses, I would vote to acquit in any event as a matter of principle, regardless of the evidence, because I fundamentally disagree with the laws in question. Convicting anybody for such bogus, victimless crimes would be contrary to my core libertarian moral values. Moreover, it would be my right and duty as a juror to judge the law as much as the person, and refuse to convict when I find the law morally repulsive. Sadly many jurors fail to realize this, and instead think they are supposed to uphold the law no matter how much they disagree with it. Today I was delighted to come across an organization working to inform potential jurors of their proper role. FIJA is the Fully Informed Jury Association, and here is finally a charity I can get behind! As they put it,

The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if the government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

FIJA Works to:
Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their conscience at the courthouse door;

Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdict;

Inform everyone that juror veto--juror nullification--is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny.

This goes for Norway too, with some caveats. In some ways we have less rights and a more oppressive state. We have (at least) triple jeopardy. Double jeopardy is built into the system as a matter of course. Our jury system, which was instituted in 1887, works roughly like this. Defendants are first tried in Tingretten, which is a sort of kangaroo court with one judge and two semi-professional laymen who vote and produce a verdict which isn't taken very seriously by anyone (it scarcely even counts as jeopardy). Then if either party appeals, which is extremely common, the real trial is in Lagmannsretten with 10 jurors and 3 judges. At this point, a certain level of flagrant disrespect for jury nullification is built into the system. The matter of guilt is up to the jury of 10 peers, but if they vote to acquit and the 3 professional judges disagree (if they find it obvious that the defendant is technically guilty but the jury has decided to disregard the law -- the very definition of jury nullification), they can quash the verdict and order a new trial, subjecting the defendant to triple jeopardy. In the new trial there are only four laymen in addition to another three professional judges, and even here I am not sure if an acquittal is necessarily final. Thus there are some serious structural obstacles to jury nullification in Norway. Nonetheless, our jury system is still pretty strong, and it is important that we keep it that way. Ideally we should strengthen it, of course. The buck should stop with an acquittal in Lagmannsretten, after which there should be no way the defendant can be retried for the same crime. This only happens occasionally, however, so with respect to appeals and multiple jeopardy, I am about 70% pleased with the way it works now. We should also guarantee the right to a jury trial for all crimes, and not just crimes punishable by more than 6 years. We might also debate whether just 7 votes out of 10 jurors should really be sufficient to convict. (In the American system, all 12 have to agree. But on the other hand, their system has many other shortcomings including the governmental extortion that is plea bargaining, all kinds of unfair restrictions on what evidence is admissible including rape shield laws, and even ways to get around the double jeopardy rule simply by picking another name for the same alleged crime -- so I am not saying their system is better overall.)

In rape trials based on feminist corruption of the legal definition, jury nullification is in fact already happening. It just isn't recognized as such. The official propaganda has it that some flaws in the system must be preventing justice from being served. We are constantly told that the system needs to be reformed in various ways to convict more men, from the supposedly careless way rape accusations are initially handled by police to the pesky problem of juries refusing to get with the feminist program and convict. But indeed, the low conviction rate (or "high attrition rate," as feminists put it) in rape trials is proof that the system is working, at least to some extent. There is still some vestige of justice and sanity left. The people is protesting corrupt laws and odious feminist prosecutors by refusing to convict in many cases. And ironically, women jurors vote to acquit accused rapists more often than men do, according to one study. Yes, on rape juries, manginas run more rampant than feminists! The problem from an MRA perspective is state feminism, corrupt laws and the disrespect for the citizenry embodied by the weak position of the jury. And it keeps getting worse. Feminists are lobbying to abolish the jury altogether in rape trials, citing what is in fact jury nullification (and should be respected as such -- the proper course of action is to back off and reverse feminist rape law reform) as evidence that only professional feminist lawyercunts and manginas are fit to decide who is guilty of rape. When that happens, we won't have any nonviolent recourse against tyrannical feminist prosecutions, but we still do as of today, and we should avail ourselves of this opportunity for nonviolent activism while it lasts. If you ever serve on a jury, please don't let the feminists with their laws and judges cow you into voting for a guilty verdict if it goes against your conscience.

Monday, January 09, 2012

Is the Men's Rights Movement only for betas? An article signed by four "masculinists" (of Maskulinist.no) in Morgenbladet, where I am also cited, raises the question of which group constitutes the Men's Movement, and I suppose it is easy to get the impression from a cursory look at MRA sites that we are all about betas. I guess I haven't been clear as to exactly who is included in our movement as I see it, so perhaps it is time to define MRA.

Men's Rights Activism is a backlash against feminism. Feminism is basically about restricting men’s access to women’s bodies by means of the police state, all while forcibly reaping the fruits of men's labor without having to put out any more than they feel like. MRA is the opposite. Succinctly put, MRActivism addresses how to get laid and what happens when you do. The former is perhaps best summed up in my “Rape is equality” post, and the latter includes criminal (and civil) sex accusations as well as anything to do with divorce, paternity fraud, child support and custody, etc. While how to get laid is by definition a beta and omega issue, what happens when you do is also highly applicable to alphas. Feminist corruption of justice has made sex extremely risky no matter how alpha you are. Alpha victims of feminist sex laws include Julian Assange, DSK, Silvio Berlusconi, Herman Cain, and Israeli ex-president Moshe Katshav, who is now in prison for false rape and sexual harassment. And that’s just to name a few recent examples off the top of my head. Even Bill Clinton and Al Gore almost ran afoul of feminist sex law, so clearly no man is too powerful to be a victim. There is also a plethora of recent examples here in Norway, where thousands of men criminalized by the new law against buying sex now are exposed by hackers after the media dug into a website where prostitutes advertise and found, unsurprisingly, that men in all kinds of positions were customers. I am linking to the complete user database including all phone numbers (but not the text messages between hookers and johns, which I do not possess because the hackers were too chickenshit to share them) in order to show all these men that the feminist police state is a very real personal threat against which we should all band together. This material alone could be used to at least triple the Norwegian prison population for a year if feminist prosecutors used it for all it is worth, but I guess it was too overwhelming to charge some 20,000 men all at once...

Of course, men always compete for women, with each man preferring to keep all the pussy for himself. Alphas and betas are not natural allies, and so far, hardly any alphas have come out in support of MRA. They probably don’t feel the need to yet. Life is generally good for alphas under feminism, but all it takes to ruin your life is a woman’s word. I believe all men ought to conspire against the feminist police state out of solidarity but also for their own good, and when that happens, feminism won't stand a chance. The hard part is convincing the alphas that supporting feminism is a bad idea, as most of them seem to be incapable of realizing this until it is too late. But they should. Even when I was most sexually frustrated, feminist sex laws and rape reform in particular always remained at the forefront of my mind and I was seething with hatred and murderous rage against the cops who enforce all the freshly minted feminist sex laws against men who do easily get laid. We are in this together, alphas and betas alike, and it is high time to fight the feminist police state. In fact, oppugning feminist jurisprudence is arguably more important than promoting sexual egalitarianism, since at the very least, men would be able to pay for sex without persecution.